Quantcast

«

»

Nov 03 2011

Republican Bigot is All For Special Rights

There are few things more idiotic than the rhetoric from bigots about gay people wanting “special rights,” inevitably defined as wanting the same rights the rest of us take for granted. But Rep. Trent Franks, who may be even crazier than Michele Bachmann, has now admitted that marriage is a “special right” — and if straight people can’t keep it exclusively, it will destroy the entire country!

Franks: We understand that when we’re granting the rights of marriage, that that’s a special right Tony, that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation, we believe that with all of our hearts as a society, I think most people understand that. So we’ve set aside this special area of the law that says we’re going to respect traditional marriage of a man and a woman because that is the launching pad of the next generation. Let’s face it; we have made a special exception in the law that gives special consideration and recognition to that.

And when people would come along and blur that distinction and say ‘well that should apply in every way’ it not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.

See, when they say that the gay agenda is all about “special rights,” some people think they mean that gay people want something that would be given only to them rather than merely being treated equally. What they really mean is that straight Christians have all the special rights and they want to make sure no one else gets them.

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    HumanisticJones

    And once again we must “Think of the children” because that’s so obviously what marriage is about, completely missing that sterile couples, couples looking only to adopt, or elderly couples exist and want to get married so that they can file taxes jointly, manage inheritance, have hospital visitation rights, and share insurance benefits. So if gays getting married should be illegal because it isn’t “the launching pad of the next generation”, then logically those previous examples should be illegal because they aren’t either.

  2. 2
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    Loving v. Virginia declared marriage a basic civil right.

    If this ever goes to the SCotUS then it’s going to be a quick in and out. They can’t say otherwise.

  3. 3
    Mr Ed

    We understand that when we’re granting the rights

    Middle school civics, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens not something you grant. The argument seems to be that marriage is a privilege granted by the state to ensure the next generation.

  4. 4
    Michael Heath

    I find it ironic though unsurprising that Rep. Franks’s argument is premised on the authoritarian premise that government grants us a right as fundamental as determining who we can marry. That’s a complete rejection of the portion of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and enlightenment ideals in regards to the self-owned nature of rights. It is consistent with Islamist and Christianist theocracies.

    Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort writes:

    Loving v. Virginia declared marriage a basic civil right.

    I [humbly] think the proper term here is fundamental right. Civil rights are those that protect the right of individuals to exercise their rights in the political realm of society where the right to marry extends well beyond that context.

    Beyond Loving, Ted Olson and David Boies, who are the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the CA Prop. 8 federal case, have found a handful to several federal precedents acknowledging that marriage is a fundamental right. That should be self-evident to anyone who has an elementary understanding of both the Constitution and the underlying premises of the Declaration of Independence, which seems to disqualify nearly every living American conservative.

  5. 5
    dingojack

    “We understand that when we’re granting the rights of marriage that that’s a special right Tony [is 'marriage' a 'right'? Is it a 'special right'?], that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation [is there any evidence at all of this claim?], we believe that with all of our hearts [Does that even vaguely make it actually true?}. I think most people understand that. [in fact, polls suggest otherwise]”
    “And when people would come along and blur that distinction and say ‘well that should apply in every way’ it not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage [How exactly?] and the hope of future generations [evidence of the veracity of this statement?] but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family [and the actual mechanism is...?] that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished [really? evidence of this statement is...?] to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival {Really? And your proof is…?] in the long run.”
    Overall F-. Complete lack of evidence to support your wildly apocalyptic claims gives the impression of fervid desperation, If you want to convince a real audience, you will have to produce a real argument, backed up with real evidence.
    Dingo

  6. 6
    D. C. Sessions

    If this ever goes to the SCotUS then it’s going to be a quick in and out.

    As in, Loving will be reversed?

    The lawyers I know with connections to the LGBT community tell me that’s the reason you’re not seeing any invocations of Loving in the courts: the current USSC is so results-oriented they expect that the Court would issue a binding ruling to deny gay marriage, and the whole subject would be dead for a couple of decades.

  7. 7
    Doug Little

    that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation, we believe that with all of our hearts as a society, I think most people understand that.

    Suggesting something and wishing it was true with all your heart so you can discriminate against a group of people is not the same as actually having evidence to back up your suggestion, I don’t think these fucktards get that concept.

  8. 8
    Dennis N

    If this ever goes to the SCotUS then it’s going to be a quick in and out. They can’t say otherwise.

    I feel like you haven’t read Scalia and Thomas’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas. Not necessarily their terrible legal reasoning, but the lengths they will go to shit on gay people.

  9. 9
    carolw

    So my husband and I are contributing to the downfall of American society by not having children as god intended. Boo hoo. Good thing we’re balanced out by my gay friend and his husband adopting a baby and raising him in a loving household. Trying to figure out why that is ruining future generations makes my head hurt. Seriously. These right-wing Christards need to pull their heads out of the sand (or wherever they’re lodged) and look at reality.

  10. 10
    Doug Little

    carolw @9

    These right-wing Christards need to pull their heads out of the sand (or wherever they’re lodged) and look at reality.

    Reality is their kryptonite, they steer clear of it as it tends to weaken and destroy their arguments.

  11. 11
    sceptinurse

    –that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation, we believe that with all of our hearts as a society, –

    So by that reasoning only people raising children should have the right to be married. Therefore once the children are grown and leave the house the couple are no longer married?

  12. 12
    shay

    So we’ve set aside this special area of the law that says we’re going to respect traditional marriage of a man and a woman because that is the launching pad of the next generation.

    Someone tell that to Kim Kardashian.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site